Memo from Liam Fox to the Taliban
Dear Colleagues,
The new, more realistic, UK administration understands that your traditional values are appropriate for Afghanistan and that so-called “liberal” and “democratic” values – particularly with regard to the inferior, female element of society - are not. We will explain this to the women and girls of your splendid country, some of whom may have been mislead by adventurist neo-cons into expecting that the US and UK would support their so-called “liberation.” We now realise that raising such expectations was a mistake. The good chaps in the Pakistani secret services agree.
Those of you who choose to call yourselves “moderates” are welcome to take power, with or without Karzai. I mean, he’s talked about joining you lot, anyway, hasn’t he?
We’re withdrawing in 2014, so – to be honest – you can just sit tight ’till then: then move in, neutralise or kill Karzai. The women and girls can be subdued according to your traditional culture which we naturally respect. We’d prefer it if you didn’t tear teachers who’ve taught girls, limb from limb – but that’s you’re decision of course. Any locals who’ve helped us – you know, interpreters and suchlike- will be denied immigration rights to the UK, so you’ll have to deal with them. I trust you’ll be merciful. Anyway: we’re fucking off in 2014 and you chaps can take over. Good luck! You know where you stand with a Tory/Lib Dem government!
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Liam Fox
(cc: David Cameron), Perfidious Albion
Egg on your face said,
July 18, 2010 at 9:23 pm
This looks like attacking the Tories for not fighting to the very last drop of blood in Afghanistan, and not copying the French ban on the Burka to boot.
More realistic” government, eh? Fucking ultra-militarist shite. Wouldn’t this be a good item for the EDL website?
“No surrender to the Taliban….”
And you fuckbrains still can’t spell people’s names.
charliethechulo said,
July 18, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Are you even thicker than we thought, egg-brains?
Egg on your face said,
July 18, 2010 at 9:29 pm
You people can actually think? Pull the other one!
splinteredsunrise said,
July 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm
You’re calling for perpetual war until Afghanistan is as metrosexual as north London? Srsly?
Can we have a list of the other countries you want occupied till the last drop of blood?
charliethechulo said,
July 18, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Ireland, for a start.
splinteredsunrise said,
July 18, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Ah yes. We’re in Cromwell Re-Enactment Society mode. Have you tried lying down in a dark room? Maybe listening to some James Taylor or Jackson Browne? It might do wonders for your bellicosity.
Daragh McDowell said,
July 18, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Well this is a rather obvious piece of political opportunism. The Tories are doing it therefore it must be doubleplus ungood…
charliethechulo said,
July 18, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Yes it would. Just like abusing a child would, no doubt, keep a Catholic bigot like you happy.
splinteredsunrise said,
July 18, 2010 at 10:22 pm
I’ll expect you at Confession in the morning, young lad.
raincoatoptimism said,
July 18, 2010 at 10:49 pm
ah charliethechulo, I see you’re going for the Mel Gibson school of winning friends and influencing people (and that’s a catholicism that even the catholics hate – Mussolini only more powerful).
maxdunbar said,
July 19, 2010 at 5:25 am
So we’ve established that the far left/Catholic commenters care no more about the rights of Afghans than the Tories.
Still, what’s there that we didn’t already know?
Mike Killingworth said,
July 19, 2010 at 7:08 am
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t…
Laban said,
July 19, 2010 at 8:01 am
I still don’t understand. It’s a very good thing if little Nooria gets to go to school.
But is it a good that working class British kids should be dying for ? Afghanistan was not a part of the UK the last time I looked, although admittedly I didn’t look in Sparkbrook.
FlyingRodent said,
July 19, 2010 at 9:07 am
Hmm, last time this topic came up with one of you SS guys, it ended with Jim D. announcing that the question of whether the Afghanistan war is winnable or not was out of bounds. (Runs off, Googles) …Ah yes, that was it – the question of the war’s utility and winnability are verboten; all discussion must restrict itself to the question of whether UK forces should be occupying the country in the first place, or not.
Which is a neat way of avoiding the clear fact that those UK forces are not fighting “The Taleban”. They’re fighting a small number of Taleban troops, assorted Pakistani and Arab Jihadists and a far, far larger number of Afghan Pashtun tribesmen. We’ve taken sides in Afghanistan’s long-running civil war, aligning ourselves with the slim majority of the populace – a coalition of Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks etc. against the largest and by far the craziest group, the Pashtuns.
Check it – this is a map of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan for coalition troops and aid workers… http://tinyurl.com/mdl9dc …And this is a map of Afghanistan by ethnicity. http://tinyurl.com/3982g59 You’ll notice the overlap.
That means we’re fighting a very committed, well-supported and heavily armed insurgency in the south, one that our ongoing conflict has made exponentially tougher and better organised. They’re not going away and they’re not going to stop fighting, ever, and history is very, very clear on what happens in this situation – either the occupying force wipes out the tribe sheltering the insurgency, or the insurgency continues until the occupying force withdraws.
Now, this is an extremely serious and likely insoluble political and military situation. The rhetorical tactic in the original post – that of throwing up your hands and accusing those who have to actually deal with this horrible shitstorm of wanking for genocide – is childish and ridiculous. If the war can’t be won, it can’t be won, and no number of reminders about the potentially horrific consequences of defeat can change that fact.
So we’ve established that the far left/Catholic commenters care no more about the rights of Afghans than the Tories.
I think we can assume that, when the day comes that wars can be won through strident emoting and declarations of solidarity, Max will make a fine general. Until that day, I suggest we leave it to people who aren’t in thrall to a silly and self-important form of magical thinking.
BenSix said,
July 19, 2010 at 9:47 am
I don’t suspect these Catholic commies are saying “we shouldn’t help the Afghans“. Rather, to a certain point, they’re saying that we can’t. Unless, of course, you’re going to tell us how and why forces that do this will foster liberalism with officials that do this.
resistor said,
July 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I believe the AWL are creating a militia to go to Afghanistan to fight the war they’re so keen on. I mean they wouldn’t be such hypocrites as to send working class lads to death and disability in a futile conflict without putting their lives and limbs on the line.
Although Jim Denham is Hors de Combat (hic!) Max Dunbar is of fighting age and could be down the recruiting office this afternoon.
If you can’t get out Max, apply online
http://www.army.mod.uk/join/join.aspx
maxdunbar said,
July 19, 2010 at 5:40 pm
So you have to be a soldier to argue about war?
What’s your regiment, then?
maxdunbar said,
July 19, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I wonder if any of the far left/Catholics on this thread have any qualms about being on the same side as BNP lite commenter Laban Tall (and indeed the BNP)?
Laban said,
July 19, 2010 at 7:21 pm
now, now, Max. Smear away. I don’t think you’ve forgiven me for agreeing with one of your posts and bringing you into disrepute with same far-lefties…
It’s true I believe (not looked at their site in years) that the BNP don’t think we have a dog in this fight, any more than I do. But even a stopped clock can be right.
What’s left wing about sending working class British kids to die for your fantasy ? Iraq was, while it all went pretty pearshaped, a plausible candidate for democratic reform, even that implemented at rifle point. No so with Afghanistan.
Anyway, as I’ve said before, if you wait a few years you’ll find that Afghan political culture will be a good deal more like British political culture – as we move closer to them !
Laban said,
July 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm
and re your childish little “you agree with X on one thing, so you agree with him on all things” argument, I think a quote from the historian AJP Taylor is in order here. In the foreword to his ‘Origins of the Second World War’ he wrote :
“I have however no sympathy with those in [Britain] who complained that my book had been welcomed, mistakenly or not, by former supporters of Hitler. This seems to me a disgraceful argument to be used against a work of history. A historian must not hesitate even if his books lend aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies (though mine did not), or even to the common enemies of mankind. For my part, I would even record facts which told in favour of the British government, if I found any to record.”
Max, I’d even record facts which told in favour of our Afghan policy, if I found any to record.
FlyingRodent said,
July 19, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Well, there you go – how can a mere man withstand devastating critical analysis like that? I take it all back.
I’d thought that the UK’s forces in Afghanistan were facing a likely-insuperable array of political, strategic and operational nightmares in an almost certainly unwinnable war that’s already yielded an unacceptable, still-mushrooming bodycount. I thought that posts of The Taliban are evil, so let’s all agree to pretend that reality itself can be shaped by the power of positive thought and accuse people of hankering for genocide ilk were either dishonest or insane.
Having read your response, I now realise that only a Trot, a Tim or a Nazi would believe such a thing, no matter how clear-cut the available evidence, and nobody would want to be called one of those. Forward to inevitable victory!
splinteredsunrise said,
July 19, 2010 at 9:15 pm
I’m sure Max will make a fine humanitarian general some day. Perhaps after he’s reached puberty.
resistor said,
July 19, 2010 at 9:36 pm
‘So you have to be a soldier to argue about war?’
No, but it’s very easy to be a chickenhawk and call for war from the safety of your bedroom.
If you feel these wars are worth fighting, and you are of military age, join up. What’s stopping you?
splinteredsunrise said,
July 19, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Incidentally, check out who Jim’s going to be marching alongside come September. I like the look of your new friends.
Pinkie said,
July 19, 2010 at 9:56 pm
I really hate silly phrases liked ‘Jumped the Shark’.
That is why it is so appropriate.
A shit site best described by a shit cliche.
You should be ashamed.
Pinkie said,
July 19, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Where is Voltaires Priest?
Make the break VP, before they make you look too bad. The children have taken over the nursery.
Pinkie said,
July 19, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Oh, and Max Dunbar, shut up and grow up, you cocky little fuck. Say something new.
Renegade Eye said,
July 20, 2010 at 3:03 am
Imperialism supporting political Islam, goes back to building the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser. Heck they even put mullahs in power in Iran, to cicle the Soviet Union with Islamic countries.
Regards.
maxdunbar said,
July 20, 2010 at 6:04 am
I feel like we’re running a fucking creche here.
Everyone seems agreed that you have to be a soldier to discuss the war and yet they all seem to have become armchair military strategists (albeit that the only option they put on the table is that of total and unconditional surrender).
Let’s get this straight – we have a volunteer army. You may not respect working class soldiers but at least give them the credit of being able to make their own informed decisions.
No one is saying that this war is a cakewalk and that it will be over by Christmas. But if the Taliban aren’t worth fighting then nobody is.
And one more thing. The majority of Afghans back our presence there and think the country is ‘going in the right direction’:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8448930.stm
But what the hell – they’re just Afghans…
Egg on your face said,
July 20, 2010 at 8:28 am
“No one is saying that this war is a cakewalk and that it will be over by Christmas. But if the Taliban aren’t worth fighting then nobody is.
And one more thing. The majority of Afghans back our presence there and think the country is ‘going in the right direction’”
Is that ‘our’ derived from the Royal ‘we’, vicariously derived from vulgar patriotism, as usual the last refuge of the scoundrel?
Or is there something Max is not telling us? Has he taken ‘Resistor’s’ advice, and taken the Queen’s shilling after all?
FlyingRodent said,
July 20, 2010 at 9:19 am
I feel like we’re running a fucking creche here.
Well, not that I’d wanted to go all Tu Quoque here, but OMG you are a bit like the BNP isn’t exactly Socrates in full flow, is it?
You may not respect working class soldiers but at least give them the credit of being able to make their own informed decisions.
I’ve no idea who this is aimed at or what it’s supposed to mean. I’d suggest that one excellent way of showing respect for soldiers would be by not forcing them to continue acting as target practice for Taliban snipers in an ill-defined and probably unwinnable conflict.
That “armchair strategist” crack is too tempting to leave alone, though. You don’t have to be brain surgeon to spot a broken leg or a chef to recognise a chicken curry; nor do you have to be a five-star general to spot an abject military clusterfuck. I’ll have to give that point a bash later…
FlyingRodent said,
July 20, 2010 at 9:48 am
Right, where were we?
Everyone seems agreed that you have to be a soldier to discuss the war and yet they all seem to have become armchair military strategists…
You don’t have to be a soldier to discuss the war. If, OTOH, your point is that UK forces should continue being blown up and shot to bits to no great effect in defence of your demonstrably impractical and, frankly, fantastical politics, it’s understandable that some people will react by suggesting that you might like to go help out yourself.
This is a crucial point though – you don’t need to be a military strategist, armchair or otherwise, to understand the war in Afghanistan. All you need is eyes, a reasonable grasp of modern history and a functional brain.
As demonstrated, we’re fighting a single Afghan tribe and probably have been for much of the decade. Bluntly, it’s incredibly difficult for even a small cell of guerrillas to operate without lukewarm-to-strong local support – they’re dependent on the locals for a majority of their food, weapons, ammunition, couriers, medical supplies, intelligence on enemy movements and disposition, local counter-espionage etc.
Anybody trying this without friendly grannies timing enemy tank patrols, holding packages, passing on messages and supplies etc. is going to get killed the first time they try an attack; anyone trying to run a cell in a hostile area with no local cover at all is going to be spotted and wind up in a Kabul dungeon with a hairy bloke spanking their hands with a hammer in about three seconds.
What’s happening in Afghanistan is no small guerrilla cell – it’s a full-blown, heavily armed and extremely nasty insurgency that’s successfully stalemated the planet’s most terrifying war machine for a decade. Let me put this in perspective – the US has the south of Afghanistan blanketed with satellites and predator drones and has spent billions on surveillance tech. Next to nothing moves without the Americans seeing it happening, so how are the insurgency moving and resupplying troops?
The Rumsfeldian idea that there’s a central command sending out relief to small, mobile groups all over the country is just mental. By far the most likely answer is that for the most part, the local Pashtuns are those troops. What looks like everyday activity is actually arms deals, supply swaps etc.
Of course, it’s possible that the Foreign Fighters theory is right, which would mean that the T. soldiers are extracting food and weaponry from the locals at gunpoint. That runs into the dungeon/hammers problem though – if the locals are being terrorised by militia, why aren’t they feeding US and UK forces information, locations and names?
Well anyway, here’s your take-home point – if the Taliban are foreigners terrorising the unwilling people of south of Afghanistan, then the war will be very bloody, but it’s winnable. Hooray!
If they’re not – if they’re largely homegrown and well-supported – well, then the war will still be going in 2050 and we’ll be no closer to victory, because a well-supported insurgency can’t be defeated without taking measures we won’t countenance.
Remember “the guerrilla must move among the people as the fish swims through the sea”? Well, the only way to win against that situation is to dry up the seabed. Nukes will do that, but somehow I don’t think we’re quite ready for that yet.
(None of this stuff is particularly complex or difficult to find out, by the way. A book on the Vietnam War here, Algeria there, is pretty much all you need. Plus, some Chinese guy called Mao wrote an entire book explaining how to do all of this horrible guerrilla stuff at very great length – you might have heard of it).
luke said,
July 20, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Why isn’t there the political incentive to send troops to the Congo like there is to keep them in Afghanistan? From a purely pragmatic perspective, the Congo has far more natural resources than Afghanistan does. From a humanitarian perspective, the number of civilians killed in that conflict is at least 100 times higher than in Afghanistan.
maxdunbar said,
July 20, 2010 at 8:08 pm
So you agree that I don’t have to be a soldier to have a view on the war. Thanks for that. The fact is that we don’t conscript our army and believe it or not people do join for their own reasons. I’m not ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything.
Now that you’ve conceded that could we also have less of the infantile, sub- Charlie Brooker lumbering sarcasm. You probably think it makes you look stylish. I can assure you that it does not.
You also make a lot of assumptions about my views. I don’t think this war is easy and I’m not in love with our current strategy on it (and Charlie’s post is a criticism of coalition strategy). I thought it was incredibly stupid to fill the 2001 parliament with vicious warlords. Undoubtedly even with a perfect strategy this would be difficult. What did you expect? A cakewalk and then home by Christmas? Not that your view would change, but…
Obviously the doctrinaire pacifists and sniggering BNP isolationists on this thread could be expected to agree with coalition policy of selling out Afghans to the Taliban. I don’t and I support Charlie for calling the policy what it is – betrayal.
splinteredsunrise said,
July 20, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Max, who’s “we”?
FlyingRodent said,
July 20, 2010 at 9:49 pm
…could we also have less of the infantile, sub- Charlie Brooker lumbering sarcasm. You probably think it makes you look stylish. I can assure you that it does not.
Boom, headshot! I plead 100% guilty – mea culpa. Although, I always preferred Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, myself.
What did you expect? A cakewalk and then home by Christmas? Not that your view would change, but…
I have to warn you that this probably isn’t a productive line of argument to when you’re aiming to prolong a war that looks like dragging on for at very least thirteen years or so, especially not one we appear to be losing quite badly.
Obviously the doctrinaire pacifists and sniggering BNP isolationists on this thread could be expected to agree with coalition policy of selling out Afghans to the Taliban. I don’t and I support Charlie for calling the policy what it is – betrayal.
Believe it or not Max, I’m not just bumping my gums to annoy you here, although there is an element of that. I’ve been asking these same questions – how do you win an unwinnable war; are you aware that it’s utterly impossible to maintain any kind of insurgency without strong local support etc. – of various Afghan war boosters for years.
Without exception, every single one has responded by launching long, tear-streaked pledges of faithfulness to the Afghan people and belligerent calls for victory while utterly refusing to discuss the practical realities of fighting committed insurgencies.
No doubt this is because I’m a Godawful bore, but what I’m looking for is some tiny glimmer of recognition of reality. I’ll say this again – if the UK/US forces in country can’t win, then they can’t win. The consequences of defeat are irrelevant if defeat is inevitable – that’s why they’re called unwinnable wars.
Now, if the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable – and it may not be, although it certainly looks that way to me, for the reasons I’ve laid out in great and tedious detail above – what would you recommend should be done?
Note that We must not betray the Afghan people is an evasion of this question rather than an answer.
maxdunbar said,
July 21, 2010 at 5:44 am
Well, I’m not a military strategist, I cannot recommend what Petraeus should do. The original post was a criticism of coalition policy rather than a roadmap to victory. But I hesitate to declare the war ‘unwinnable’ rather than just incredibly difficult.
Even ‘tear streaked declarations of loyalty’ would be more use than the History Today ‘that’s you, that is’ namecalling that has passed for criticism of Charlie’s post.
FlyingRodent said,
July 21, 2010 at 9:08 am
Mmm, well it wouldn’t be very fair to ask for suggestions on military matters. I certainly don’t have any.
I’m trying – maybe unsuccessfully – to make the point that the decision of whether to keep troops in Afghanistan or not has probably been taken out of our hands now. Public tolerance for pointless military deaths and huge expense isn’t infinite, and will run out at some point., likely sooner rather than later. A democracy can’t ignore the wishes of its citizens, as the Dutch pullout quite clearly shows.
In this context, if my reading is correct, it should be clear that the choice facing the nation wouldn’t be between Fighting on towards ultimate victory and Betraying the Afghan people by wussing out. It would be between Preparing for the inevitable withdrawal by cutting deals and bolstering friendly forces as best we can and Clinging on, suffering Soviet-occupationlevel casualties to the bitter end in the vague hope that a more palatable solution will spontaneously emerge via some miraculous deus ex machina.
The latter case involves weighing up the situation as it stands and acting accordingly, however hard the decisions; the former is for people who prefer making Bold Declarations of Solidarity and issuing Fiery Denunciations of Wrong-Thinkers to frank and honest analysis. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Bold Declarers struggle badly when faced with the severe operational problems UK forces have to deal with on the ground, but hey ho.
johng said,
July 21, 2010 at 11:56 am
I’m just reading a book ‘the men who ruled india’. The author rather reminds me of max dunbar. this kind of thing does’nt work mate. Its the lesson unlearned in the 1990s only so that liberals had to relearn it at other peoples expense in the noughties. thats my reading of the whole bloody mess. a little more introspection is required from those who advocated this course.
skidmarx said,
July 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm
if the UK/US forces in country can’t win, then they can’t win.
But if Max and his friends are going to focus on the ideological superstructure of the world rather than the underlying reality of class relations, it would seem consistent of them to take a view that more effort would lead to a triumph of the will.
SteveH said,
July 21, 2010 at 4:59 pm
More pleading to the capitalist state from Shiraz!!
I really can’t believe you didn’t see this day coming. Your zeal for the Bush liberation project was so fanatical it has obviously affected your senses. Or maybe being fucking idiots is what you are.
However I must correct you on one point, the plan isn’t to withdraw the ‘liberation’ forces anymore than in Iraq. The plan is to stay but manage the competing forces to maximise the interests of the ruling classes. But that was always the plan. Only you idiots can’t see that. Instead you look on in disbelief that Bush’s great liberation project has not created the progressive society you imagined it was intended to create. This article is not an attack on the Tories but an attack on your own idiocy.
Incidentally to answer SplinteredSunrise’s question on where to occupy next the link below could provide inspiration,
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/07/racist-patriarchy-in-israel.html
maxdunbar said,
July 21, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I do understand that you’re playing at being a realist and I appreciate that actual realist arguments for our presence there – making sure Al-Q can’t use the country as a base – wouldn’t convince you.
You make it sound though like the war is being fought in entirely military terms, which is not true – a lot of UK involvement is about aid, training, infrastructure, international development, poverty relief. How a deal with the Taliban will affect this work, god knows.
Your repeated claim that the war is unwinnable is debatable, at least, and there are realist arguments that the war is winnable:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistan-a-war-were-winning-1994934.html
Then again, as someone who’s served in Afghanistan (rather than a twat in a comments thread) what would he know?
maxdunbar said,
July 21, 2010 at 6:48 pm
John
Since you’re so well up on your empire how come you don’t recognise, as Charlie does, that carving the country up between the Taliban and local fiefdoms is a classic imperialist tactic?
Steve said,
July 21, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“Then again, as someone who’s served in Afghanistan (rather than a twat in a comments thread) what would he know?”
So some arse licking officer twat says ‘we’ are winning the war. Big fucking deal. You don’t get to Lt Colonel without being an establishment lackey. What he really means is the ruling class project is on track and he’s right about that. Smug cunt walking round Afghanistan with machine gun in hand like he owns the place.
He does have form for exaggerated language, he described one fallen soldier as “one of the Army’s rarest treasures”. Then again as the corpses pile up I guess his job is to keep up morale. Although his main job seems to be telling the press how great the dead soldiers were.
Funny how you used the independent as your source, when I type his name into Google it is the Daily Mail, Telegrapgh. Times and Sun in which he appears to be quoted the most. They all think him a bit of a hero.
BenSix said,
July 21, 2010 at 8:16 pm
That’s because they’re woeful.
FlyingRodent said,
July 21, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Your man there may be right – it’s perfectly possible that I’ve been misreading all those articles, all these years and as you say, he’s actually been there recently.
I’m not encouraged at all by his contention that the Taliban/insurgency are becoming increasingly desperate, however – as I’ve noted, UK forces are taking casualties at Soviet-occupation rates. If that’s winning… Remember, guerilla forces don’t need to win outright, or even win significant battles. All they need to do is stay in the fight until the occupier decides he’s had enough.
I do understand that you’re playing at being a realist…
If I’m playing at anything, it’s trying work out whether people boosting the war in Afghanistan recognise the existence of actual reality itself.
Steve said,
July 23, 2010 at 7:42 am
Don’t worry Shiraz. The Tories are considering introducing legislation to allow Israeli war criminals to enter the country without fear of prosecution. Back in the good books. Shiraz and the Tories friends again, it was never going to take much, just a small nuanced change in ruling class policy, thats all.
johng said,
July 23, 2010 at 11:47 am
Max of course its a classic imperialist tactic. Its what you would expect from imperialists. The difference between you and me is that you don’t seem to recognise this: There were an enourmous amount of disapointed District Officers who imagined that Empire would be something other then it was. I don’t doubt their sincerity. But they were mistaken.
It has to be said that there is a little less excuse for a similar attitude half a century later. Especially as its only a couple of decades since the last similar excercise produced dreadful suffering for the majority of the population, and indeed, eventually, the Taliban.
chjh said,
July 24, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Kipling understood Max and Charlie’s pain…
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.
charliethechulo said,
July 24, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Try listening to what the women and girls of Afghanistan have to say:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2010/07/educating_afghan_girls.shtml
(Play the Hugh Sykes piece).
FlyingRodent said,
July 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm
And so it goes, on and on, round and round…
1) We can’t leave Afghanistan because the Taliban are evil.
2) But we can’t stay if we can’t in.
3) See step 1). This stuff makes the 70s argument for fighting on until the total destruction of Vietnam look like Sun Tzu.
Hell, Aaronovitch was openly conceding in the Times yesterday that victory may well be impossible – which means the coalition must stay! Clearly it doesn’t matter whether these arguments are practical, logical or even whether they make the first bit of damn sense at all. This kind of deliberate refusal to deal with reality isn’t principled or an act of solidarity – it’s blustering bullshit at best and cowardice at worst.
Dave said,
July 24, 2010 at 8:16 pm
We should just warn civilians that whoever puts himself near a terrorist puts himself in danger.
Can’t keep fighting like we do.. they figured it out and now they take advantage of our morality.